Ive just completed pouring over the study text, which was very illuminating for me. I've visited Byzantine DL many times but have found it difficult to find study texts. This is a blessing.
I have some questions.
When do Byzantine Catholic's believe the Consecration takes place? When does the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord ? I notice the words spoken are different than they are in the RC liturgy (both TLM and NO). This perplexes me.
Also why does the priest pray specifically for the bread to be made Christ, the wine to be made Christ's blood? Is this the point of Consecration in DL ?

And if so- then what does that say about the arguments in the Latin Rite over verbiage?

Perhaps we need DL/ Mass in Aramaic if we need exact words. If we don't need exact words but just intention then what does that indicate theologically? What does that say about the Form and the Matter which is necessary for the Sacrament to be confected?

confused RC here

DURING THE ANAPHORA!
More to the point, as Fr. Archimandrite Robert Taft, S.J. puts it: the miracle of the Eucharist is not to turn bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but to turn you and me into the Body and Blood of Christ! Pope St. Leo the Great wrote, "In the Holy Eucharist man becomes What he consumes."

Thanks for your question, and your independent study of the Divine Liturgy and Eastern Catholicism is admirable.

It is interesting that you have stumbled on one significant area which highlights a noteworthy difference between Eastern and Western thought as expressed in the Divine Liturgy. The quotes above are certainly relevant to that understanding. I would only add that we consider the sacraments to be mysteries. As such, we cannot fully understand all aspects of these mysteries, which would make it difficult to identify the exact moment in which the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. As such, the "Words of Institution" do not hold the same emphasis as in Western thought, and we generally hold that the transformation occurs at some point during the entire Anaphora.

Although one always has to be somewhat cautious with this source, there is a decent Wikipedia article on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_Institution

The article makes one interesting point and observation:



Further, the article correctly points out that some Eastern liturgical expressions do not use Words of Institution at all, further emphasizing the aspect of mystery ascribed to the Holy Sacraments / Mysteries in Eastern thought.

Bless you in your quest for greater understanding and appreciation!

Welcome to the forum.

As time goes on, you may begin to notice that Byzantine - and other Eastern Christian liturgics and spirituality tend to shy away from the minute "dissections" and what to us look like reductions to minimalism which tend to predominate in Latin Catholic theology. This reluctance may be difficult for Latin Catholics to appreciate. Our approach to these matters is one of our more distinctive and unique characteristics, IMO.

P.S: If it's any consolation, there are any number of things in Christianity which vex and perplex me, too. Trying to live a Christian life will sooner or later bring you into a head-on collision with mystery; and our secular culture don't like that none.

Thank you for all of the kind and informative replies, well wishes and blessings. The manner of embracing mystery in the East is attractive to me. I find my spirit rests in a knowledge of God without words when I read Eastern Christian texts - in a way that quiets my incessant mind.
This post is a revelation however- perhaps you are aware that there is no small argument in the Latin Church over words in the Liturgy, particularly the Institution?This Eastern Catholic understanding makes that argument seem moot and juvenile and bears the question if the Church is One then why is one rite tussling within itself to declare absolutely over a few words if 23 (?) other rites don't necessarily adhere to those same words. Both can not be true. Words can not be both essential and quasi essential.
It's a revelation in thought. Thank you!